Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Descan]

private school kids are coddled assholes, more at 11.

the articles that you posted (well, article) that *wasn't* about assholes being assholes and using triggers and trigger warnings like a weapon against precariously-position adjuncts, private school teachers, or protesters (which isn't an argument against content warnings, it's an argument against being an asshole*) was the Guardian op-ed which amounted to the same stupid argument. "Oh nooo they're censoring people and they're coddling them!" which, again, is not what they do and not what they're for. I don't agree with taking course materials off the syllabus but that's an administrative decision, not inherent to content warnings. Everything else was just editorializing and opinion; "It skews students' perceptions," is an opinion, unless they have a survey sourced. (Spoiler: they don't.) "highlights particular issues as necessarily more upsetting than others" Also an opinion, and while probably true, we *are* talking about shit that can and has caused PTSD episodes. I think that's a fair thing to call "necessarily more upsetting." Then it goes into weird shit about content warnings othering and making women and marginalized groups seem weak. Again an opinion, and kind of a weird one? a) weak to who? (rhetorical question) b) nothing is stopping white men from asking for trigger warnings except for those same perceptions of weakness. So we want to encourage that perception, buckle under to that pressure? Get rid of trigger warnings for the people who actually want them because other people are too scared of seeming weak to ask for them?
 
* For example, you could replace "that she was "triggered" by images in the protesters' materials" with anything else, and it'd be the same thing: using an excuse to be an Asshole and hurt other people.

[Arx]

private school kids are coddled assholes, more at 11.

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this the crux of the whole argument...? That it's important to draw a distinction between warnings used as intended, and warnings abused?

[EnigmaticHat]

private school kids are coddled assholes, more at 11.

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this the crux of the whole argument...? That it's important to draw a distinction between warnings used as intended, and warnings abused?

So, ContraPoints did a new video, this time regarding the meaning of freedom, safe spaces and trigger warnings.

Personally I think the big problem with safe spaces and trigger warnings at college, is that college is meant to prepare you for dealing with the real world. And in the real world, those things don't exist. Sure, some people come from modern colleges into the realm of private enterprise and want to try and force them to have all the trigger warning / safe space bullshit, but. that. is. bullshit. Private business is a competitive enterprise, by definition. By wrapping students in cotton wool, you fail to prepare them for the real world. And notice that the college students who have the least cotton-wool padding support end up going the furthest in  society.

And trigger warnings will always be bullshit, as long as there's an "approved list" of things you're "allowed" to be upset about. And if something not on the list causes you emotional discomfort, then "fuck you" basically. That attitude shows there's another layer of agenda here. In actuality there are countless things that could upset someone. But "trigger warnings" are only "allowed" to be applied to a small subset of people's things that upset them. I've met quite a few "safe space" types who enjoy being bullies about anything that's not in the "trigger warning approved list". They're not nice people.

This is the post that started the whole debate, so no.  That is not the crux of this particular argument.

[Arx]

And trigger warnings will always be bullshit, as long as there's an "approved list" of things you're "allowed" to be upset about. And if something not on the list causes you emotional discomfort, then "fuck you" basically. That attitude shows there's another layer of agenda here. In actuality there are countless things that could upset someone. But "trigger warnings" are only "allowed" to be applied to a small subset of people's things that upset them. I've met quite a few "safe space" types who enjoy being bullies about anything that's not in the "trigger warning approved list". They're not nice people.

Obviously I'm not Reelya, but how is this not a post about the problem of abusing content/trigger warnings?

E: that sounds confrontational, it's not meant to. It's an actual question, not rhetorical.

[Reelya]

I was clarifying in the last post that a basic content warning type note is not the same as how it's used now.

But the main point of that post you just linked was that the way trigger warnings are used has an inherent socio-political bias inherent in it: e.g. you're only allowed to be triggered by "sjw approved" things. If there's something that's not in their approved list that also makes you equally upset, you can basically just get stuffed according to them: they do not have you covered. e.g. saying you were triggered by anything that might trigger a person with a conservative type background (they're not immune to personal trauma) would basically be mocked and get you more abuse.

And that is an abuse of the general concept of "content warnings".

[EnigmaticHat]

Whats an example of something that's not covered that would only/mostly effect people from a conservative background?

[Max™]

Look, I've been trying to grit my teeth and ignore it, but I get triggered by off-topic discussions of the social impact of misusing content and trigger warnings, and I really get triggered by self-referential triggers so the overflow loop is going to end up producing an event horizon¹ which is the ultimate unsafe-safe-space².


<sub>1. the information needed to track each triggered trigger triggering triggers loop is not as easily replaced with a simple function in a human brain as it would be if run as code on a microprocessor, sadly, so insert some reference to Shannon entropy and call it a day
2. safe because nothing worse can really happen to you than falling beneath an event horizon, unsafe because the future points towards the singularity</sub>

[PTTG??]

I was clarifying in the last post that a basic content warning type note is not the same as how it's used now.

But the main point of that post you just linked was that the way trigger warnings are used has an inherent socio-political bias inherent in it: e.g. you're only allowed to be triggered by "sjw approved" things. If there's something that's not in their approved list that also makes you equally upset, you can basically just get stuffed according to them: they do not have you covered. e.g. saying you were triggered by anything that might trigger a person with a conservative type background (they're not immune to personal trauma) would basically be mocked and get you more abuse.

And that is an abuse of the general concept of "content warnings".

Yeah, four annoying people over the course of one's college career constitutes a good reason to hate liberalism.

[Reelya]

Antifa et al is more than four people. And if you let these people define liberalism, god help liberalism:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html

If that's "liberalism" then it's probably time to decapitate the thing and bury it, and start a New Left with a new name.

There's a reason some asshole like Trump won. And it's not the right-wing. It's because of how fucked the torchholders of the Left have become. Seriously if you guys lose 2018 there's no saving it at this stage.

[EnigmaticHat]

...okay but why would antifa invite trigger warnings?  Some republicans burned Obama in effigy when he took office, I don't remember any tea party trigger warnings.

Also kind of amazing how an organization that functionally didn't exist prior to Trump (I mean there are European antifa but they're separate from the American ones) caused him to win.

Edit: That article is from 2015 and doesn't reference antifa?  It also references a single incident that literally only includes four people, and then another incident from 1992.  It then goes on to explain that "trigger warnings don't help overcome trauma".  I mentioned previously that I know an actual rape survivor that actually has to avoid depictions of sexual violence or they'll have flashbacks.  You didn't respond to this in any meaningful way, but now you've linked an article that contradicts it.  They did so stupidly as well, suggesting that because a medical institute says that controlled exposure is helpful for overcoming trauma, that means trigger warnings are bad.  Exposure therapy is a Bad Idea without the guidance of an expert, and they didn't even link the study, so...

Here, have my own source:
http://www.revelist.com/politics/america-responds-obama/5855
This is an example of something that does NOT, in and of itself, typically warrant trigger warnings.

[Reelya]

I was trying to elicit exactly what PTTG meant by "four annoying people over the course of one's college career" by pointing out that there are way more than four people at college who could be deemed "annoying". If you're in a culture in which your views are marginalized (which is true of college conservatives) then you are in fact suppressed every single day in how you can express yourself. It's not incidental "events" it's a constant background, which if you read articles about it does add up to a high level of intimidation of the "wrong-thinkers", which is why mentioning groups like Antifa is relevant. They didn't spring out of nowhere, they are a projection of the college activist community, it's just become more visible outside campuses since Trump. That sort of thing has been simmering inside campuses for years.

That's nothing to do with trigger warnings, it's to do with what PTTG wrote. Is PTTG saying "four annoying people" because I cited four articles in my last post, or something along those lines? If that's the basis of the statement then they clearly didn't read the articles and they have no substantial counterpoints to the points made within those articles.

It's also bullshit to say that anything that could possibly upset people on the other side of politics is merely them being mildly annoyed. That's ... being just as much an asshole as labeling liberals "special snowflakes". Don't belittle others like that. You're doing the same shit you accuse others of.

[Frumple]

why is this still going on in this thread

this has less than fuck all to do with american politics almost always, and none of you seem to have brought up an exception actually relevant to the present and if you did you're damn sure not actually talking about it

you're all very pretty, but please take this to some other thread

_{jerks made me think something interesting had happened while I was asleep, but nooooo, no morning events of interest for frumple to make up for being awake at five in the goddamn morning *shakes fist*}

[smjjames]

why is this still going on in this thread

this has less than fuck all to do with american politics almost always, and none of you seem to have brought up an exception actually relevant to the present and if you did you're damn sure not actually talking about it

you're all very pretty, but please take this to some other thread

_{jerks made me think something interesting had happened while I was asleep, but nooooo, no morning events of interest for frumple to make up for being awake at five in the goddamn morning *shakes fist*}

Something something trigger warnings something liberal safe spaces something colleges something microaggression something.

IMO, the way that people have been doing trigger warnings, microaggressions, and safespace stuff is really dumb and smacks more of not wanting to talk about difficult subjects than anything else.

[Neonivek]

Well very few people want to talk about difficult subjects.

People might love Shindler's List (except spelled correctly), but few people would marathon holocaust movies. In fact I wonder if people really watch Shindler's list more than once MAYBE twice, when compared to say The Wizard of Oz.

[smjjames]

Well very few people want to talk about difficult subjects.

People might love Shindler's List (except spelled correctly), but few people would marathon holocaust movies. In fact I wonder if people really watch Shindler's list more than once MAYBE twice, when compared to say The Wizard of Oz.

It's more that it's shutting out all discussion of opposing views, that's what I mean.